If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

Technically, not quite the same. Bracers don't occupy the "body" slot, so cost twice as much for their armour enhancement bonus. A linen shirt +2 would occupy the body slot for magical equipment purposes, and so the magical enhancement costs the same as if it were a chain shirt +2.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Just to keep things tidied up, and because I think it's a reasonable measure, here's a minor amendment to the rules.

Should a proposed rule reach the anti-thesis of approved (Only 20% for), it will be purged.

JadePhoenix, I'd appreciate your reasoning behind those opinions.

Darrin, both of your proposed clarifications to charging while mounted and ride-bys make sense to me. I've added, commented, and named them (hope you're ok with the rule names I used).

Ashtagon, I'm not sure but what the current wording accomplishes the same thing on Rule 4...but your wording is clearer. As the result is the same, I'll keep the previous votes as-is, and adopt/adapt the wording you provided.

I'd ask that the issue of simple weapons be taken up as a separate issue...feel free to propose it.

Telonius, I completely agree...but please note that the number has shifted to #013.

Lonely Tylenol...regarding Rule 3...

It makes specific mention that the Epic rules still apply as normal..and there are blanket rules for how to epicly progress classes and 10-level prestige classes. Would that change your stance? Would a rewording be required?

Keld Denar...in as rule #014

prufock, can you give me a page # on that? If so, I'll remove it for already being an established rule.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

Technically, not quite the same. Bracers don't occupy the "body" slot, so cost twice as much for their armour enhancement bonus. A linen shirt +2 would occupy the body slot for magical equipment purposes, and so the magical enhancement costs the same as if it were a chain shirt +2.

Depends if Armor bonus counts as Combat affinity.
Otherwise you are correct.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Yes
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - After all metamagic is applied, the spell level should not be less than the original level of the spell. I do not agree with outright restricting it to certain metamagic.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Yes
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Abstain
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Yes
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Yes
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Yes
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - Abstain
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - No
Rule 010: Anything Can Be Armour - Yes, although it must take up a slot that is not otherwise filled by something else (IE, you can't have a robe over armor and benefit from both, at least stat-wise)
Rule 011: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox - I would adjust this to say that a prestige class's prerequisites and class features can never prevent you from taking advantage of any other feature of the class, nor prevent you from advancing in it (I'm specifically thinking of Ur-Priest, who has to not be able to cast divine spells in order to advance in the class, but by RAW this means he cannot cast his own spells).

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

4 - additional rewrite:

Add the following notation to Superior Unarmed Strike (Tome of Battle p. 33): Your unarmed damage is calculated based on the higher damage of your monk class levels plus four, or the damage listed on the table below based on your total character levels. If you do not have any monk class levels, use the table below.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 15: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped

It has been argued whether unconscious creatures get a Will save. To me, it is clear that the following paragraph is to be read in context:

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if youíre flat-footed or it isnít your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

Which implies that it applies to spells that affect willing targets (unless one purposefully ignores the first part of the paragraph).

The rules on the condition unconscious in no way indicate an unconscious target would not get a save, or not a Will save: see the SRD.

Denying an unconscious creature a Will save opens the gates to all kind of abuse, including mindrape.

Thus, I propose rule 15:

Clarification: An unconscious creature is not hindered from making a Will save. In the case of harmless effects, or in the case of spells that affect willing targets only, the creature is considered willing.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

It has been argued whether unconscious creatures get a Will save. To me, it is clear that the following paragraph is to be read in context:

Which implies that it applies to spells that affect willing targets (unless one purposefully ignores the first part of the paragraph).

The rules on the condition unconscious in no way indicate an unconscious target would not get a save, or not a Will save: see the SRD.

Denying an unconscious creature a Will save opens the gates to all kind of abuse, including mindrape.

Thus, I propose rule 15:

Clarification: An unconscious creature is not hindered from making a Will save. In the case of harmless effects, or in the case of spells that affect willing targets only, the creature is considered willing.

I agree with this so long as there is some penalty to will saves while someone is unconscious. Maybe a -4 penalty?

EDIT: In hindsight, I agree with Malachei that the penalty probably falls under a different purview in terms of ruling than his interpretation, so if it is to be included it should probably at the very least be separated in the main post.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Thank you for your comment. Because it is about a clarification of RAW from a "common sense" perspective, I'd rather keep it completely RAW. Introducing a penalty would be a houserule -- I guess a good one, but still. I think this point is really clear by RAW, it just has been poorly defended.

EDIT:

A commentary on clarification vs. changes:

This question also goes to the OP: Do we focus on clarifications or on actual rules changes?

My personal opinion is that we should try to focus more on clarifications. If we introduce actual changes, we'd no longer be clarifying 3.5, but we'd be starting to define a set of houserules in the spirit of a "Pathfinder II".

Also, shouldn't we say "Yes" / "No" / "No Idea". Because a conditional yes is hard to follow up, if several answers include different suggestions.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Approve

001 (Drowning)004 (SUS & Monks)005 (Dead)006 (Unarmed Strikes), so long as herbivorous animals keep their "all natural weapons counted as secondary", which admittedly has nothing to do with proficiency.007 (Trample) Note, however, that wolves don't have an appropriate attack, which makes the name as given in the post a bit of a misnomer.013 (Dragon Disciple) Want to make a call on what happens when you lose prerequisites as well?

Conditional

012 (Clothing as armor) MIC page 234 allows deflection, armor, and natural armor bonuses in the body slot at normal price anyway. I say no unless you're going to allow anything with an armor bonus to get special abilities like Soulfire or whatever; I don't see a reason for clothing to be singled out from Bracers of Armor in this respect.014 (TWF), if it's added that you don't take the TWF penalties unless you're actually using the TWF action.

Disapprove

003 (Legacy & Bloodline Levels) Eh, as it stands, it's a bit far-reaching. I might support No prestige class with fewer than 10 levels may have its class features advanced beyond its maximum level, however, since that fits in nicely with the epic rules and doesn't cause problems with 10-level classes that don't have RAW epic advancement.008 (Draconic Sorcerers), unless you can find one of these feats that requires sorcerer levels and doesn't require burning an arcane spell. Not inclined to give wizards access to those even if they are dragontouched.010 (Mounted Charges) As currently written, it completely excludes Pounce, Headlong Rush, Furious Charge, and similar abilities from applying with a mounted charge, since the rider isn't treated as charging, only gaining the same bonus & penalties as the mount. I think you'd also have to rewrite Spirited Charge to fit, since the rider isn't taking a full-round action to charge any more. I do like the idea behind the change, though.

Neutral

002 (Thesis) I'm inclined to believe behavior on the reducers is as intended. If this is an exploit, I've never seen it used in a game. I'm not going to pass a judgment on it quite yet, though. EDIT > I would absolutely support errata that made it so that no spell could be reduced below its original level, or even that allowed only one metamagic to apply a net -1. <011 (More Charges) This clarifies Ride-by Attack, yes? I think it still has the issue of not actually working, since you can't move through an opponent and almost every legal charge would have you continuing through them.

Ideas for Consideration

I'm not going to give these "official" numbers, because I'm not sure what ones you even want to consider.

S1Unless otherwise specified (like for Divine feats), a feat is an [Ex]traordinary ability. (I haven't looked at the ruleset in-depth to figure out exactly what this interacts with yet.)S2Experience penalties for multiclassing do not apply to prestige classes (IIRC, this rule was accidentally dropped in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5).S3If you have the ability to meet a prerequisite or requirement through temporary means, you may take a feat or class or use an ability with such a requirement. When you do not meet the requirements, you may not use the ability and are not treated as possessing the feat or class abilities of the class.S4The Exotic Weapon Master (CWar)'s Exotic Reach ability, if taken for a whip, allows you to make attacks of opportunity with it. You threaten an area out to the range you could make an attack with the whip (normally 15 feet).

And, of course, the ever-dividing Aptitude:S5aThe Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single type of weapon, chosen or preset, like Weapon Focus or Lightning Maces. (This one is supported by the actual text of Aptitude, but leads to some system abuse, especially with the aforementioned Lightning Maces.)S5bThe Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single chosen type of weapon, like Weapon Focus or Improved Critical. (This one closes some ridiculous exploits, but RAW-wise it relies on inferring a distinction not made by the text of the ability.)

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Rule 16 Tower Shields: How the #&%@ do they work?

Suggested Fix
At the start of their turn, a creature using a Tower Shield decides whether to use the Total Cover version of their shield, or whether to use it for a shield bonus. This is a free action. Tower Shields being used to provide Total Cover provide cover in all directions. You cannot make any Attacks*, as defined by the Glossery, while using a Tower Shield to gain cover. Actions which do not provide an attack roll are not attacks, and may be used while a tower shield is providing cover.

*Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.

There is the moral of all human tales;
'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
And History, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page...

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

I do need to point out something. There already is a feat that does what rule 8 proposes. Dragontouched, page 18 of dragon magic. Go read it up. What rule 8 does is it means that if you already HAVE the dragonblood subtype, then you don't need to burn a feat for something you already have.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Siosilvar

They do. Double, in fact.

You'd think so but no they do not. The relevant text is in the armor proficiency feats.

from the SRD

Armor Proficiency (Light) [General] Benefit: When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks. Normal: A character who is wearing armor with which she is not proficient applies its armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride.Special: All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

Medium and Heavy armor proficiency feats sre the same but apply to different classes.
Whats more specific, a feat, the armor rules, or type descriptions because this also means all creatures are proficient with light armor because all creatures are characters even if only NPCs. This also goes for simple weapon proficiency.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by prufock

Also keep in mind that a monk can use flurry AND 2-weapon fighting, so it clarifies that your unarmed attacks always deal Str bonus damage, not 1/2 str bonus.

No, see, this is the part I don't get. The TWFing rules supercede the Monk rules, IMO. The rules in the Monk class description only deal with your normal attack routines and you don't have an offhand no matter which hand you use. The TWFing rules then give you an offhand UAS, which is subject to all of the benefits and penalties of TWF, including the 1/2 +Str bonus.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

It has been argued whether unconscious creatures get a Will save. To me, it is clear that the following paragraph is to be read in context:

Which implies that it applies to spells that affect willing targets (unless one purposefully ignores the first part of the paragraph).

The rules on the condition unconscious in no way indicate an unconscious target would not get a save, or not a Will save: see the SRD.

Denying an unconscious creature a Will save opens the gates to all kind of abuse, including mindrape.

Thus, I propose rule 15:

Clarification: An unconscious creature is not hindered from making a Will save. In the case of harmless effects, or in the case of spells that affect willing targets only, the creature is considered willing.

You would be wrong by RAW and what you propose is the opposite of common sense. Why do you think that a character you has been knocked out is in any position to resist someone tinkering around in his head?

Originally Posted by SRD on Spell Descriptions

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only.This is clear, willing target is a special subset of targets and some spells restrict you to only this subset (like others restrict you to, say, constructs).
Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if youíre flat-footed or it isnít your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

If you are unconscious then you are willing.

Originally Posted by SRD on Saving Throws

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spellís result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

If you are willing (which being unconscious makes you) then you give up your saving throw.

Note that a creature who is asleep is not suffering from Unconsciousness (they are merely helpless) and thus still get's a saving throw.

Last edited by Emperor Tippy; 2012-04-20 at 06:58 PM.

People who think Tippy equals win.

Spoiler

Show

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr

Clearly, this is because Tippy equals Win.

Originally Posted by Sunken Valley

Tippy=Win

Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx

Wow... Tippy, you equal win.

Originally Posted by Immabozo

Tippy, I knew, in the back of my mind, that you would have the answer. Why? Cause you win. That's why.

Originally Posted by Mithril Leaf

Alright. I finally surrender. Tippy, you do in fact equal win. You have claimed the position of being my idol.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

That got lost in proof-reading between 3.0 and 3.5.

I just checked my copy of the PHB. Swim skill, proficiency feats, armor section in equipment; it's there in all three places. d20SRD appears to be missing that text in the proficiency feats, which is strange. It's there in the other two, and I'm inclined to value the description of armor check penalties and the skill telling you what modifiers apply over the lack of text in the feats (being that lack of text does not preclude additions by other rules).

Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy

If you are willing (which being unconscious makes you) then you give up your saving throw.

Note that a creature who is asleep is not suffering from Unconsciousness (they are merely helpless) and thus still get's a saving throw.

I was with you up until here. Just because they're willing doesn't mean they're going to forgo their saving throw. Admittedly, they're likely to, but it's not part of the rules definition of "willing", the use of "willingly" notwithstanding. "Willing" only means that you can cast spells restricted to willing targets only on them (or so the argument goes).

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Right now, SUS improves your damage in one of two ways: if you have no Monk levels, it has its own table; if you have at least one level in Monk, it buffs your effective Monk level.

What this means is that a Monk 1 / Non-Monk X will eventually do LESS damage than a straight Non-Monk X+1, because their damage from SUS is pinned at Monk 5.

Ah, I see. Wouldn't the feat just make more sense if the feat (and the Monk's unarmed strike damage) both calculated the number of steps that they increased damage by, which is actually what they do, instead of the "effective levels" of the class that progresses it? Monk's unarmed strike damage progresses by 2 + x/4 rounded down, where x is your level, and Superior Unarmed Strike progresses by 1+ x/4 rounded down. Worded that way, there should be an obvious way to state that your unarmed damage with the Monk increases by an additional step, such as "Monk levels stack with Superior Unarmed Strike for determining bonus damage steps at level 1, but overlap for the purposes of determining damage progression on subsequent levels". Or some other wording that is much, much less stupid. The result is that your Unarmed Strike progression if you have any levels in Monk becomes 3 + x/4 rounded down (which was the purpose of this feat as it was intended). None of this "effective Monk level" nonsense.

In any case, my vote is now yes for 4.

Originally Posted by Andorax

Lonely Tylenol...regarding Rule 3...

It makes specific mention that the Epic rules still apply as normal..and there are blanket rules for how to epicly progress classes and 10-level prestige classes. Would that change your stance? Would a rewording be required?

I think a rewording might be required, but I get what I did wrong - I read the ruling as "unless the feature's progression is explicitly made mention of, it doesn't advance", as in "unless a table spells out its epic level progression, it doesn't have one", which means that by default no class features advance unless there's an Epic Progression table, which only exists for SRD classes and prestige classes (meaning that, by default, anything not printed in an SRD-ready book doesn't have an epic level progression). Per my reading, the only base classes that would have an epic level progression at all would be the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Soulknife, and Wilder (since they have tables outlining their epic level progression that include class features), and the rest of the SRD (for epic or psionic feats only).

Assuming that your rule simply refers to the scaling of class abilities that run on a fixed level progression (such as the Marshal's major aura bonus) and so on, as opposed to a blanket ban on everything not spelled out on a table, my vote for 3 becomes yes.

Let it be known, however, that my vote for 12 follows my vote for 9 logically as a no. There is a difference between codpiece of armor +2 and a +2 codpiece, that being that the former actually does use the MIC enhancement guidelines for applying armor, natural armor and deflection bonii to unusual items (which doesn't change per this ruling either way), and the latter applies a new rule which allows you to treat a striped sweater as masterwork, and then enchant it as you would a chain shirt (which is changing), which means that you could have a +5 slick striped sweater of invulnerability, shadow, silent moves, acid resistance and arrow catching (using SRD enhancements only) because your striped sweater is technically now "armor". Congratulations: your striped sweater magically makes you Waldo (and also grants damage reduction and stuff).

It gets even more absurd if you can wear clothing with your armor (and why wouldn't you wear at least undergarments to keep your armor from smelling bad?), because you now have a +5 armor of various enhancements for your actual Armor Class value, and a +1 speedo of various other enhancements for the things you couldn't tack onto your first armor without turning it epic.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Siosilvar

I was with you up until here. Just because they're willing doesn't mean they're going to forgo their saving throw. Admittedly, they're likely to, but it's not part of the rules definition of "willing", the use of "willingly" notwithstanding. "Willing" only means that you can cast spells restricted to willing targets only on them (or so the argument goes).

Being a willing target is a subset of the targets. You can enter that set in two ways 1) be voluntarily entering it or 2) by being unconscious. If you are part of that set then you don't get a save against any spell.

If you are conscious then you get to make your choice whether to be part of the willing targets set whenever you want (and people can be assumed to default to being unwilling), if you are unconscious then you automatically become a willing target.

Willing is not something that only exists for specific spells, specific spells just restrict you to only willing targets.

People who think Tippy equals win.

Spoiler

Show

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr

Clearly, this is because Tippy equals Win.

Originally Posted by Sunken Valley

Tippy=Win

Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx

Wow... Tippy, you equal win.

Originally Posted by Immabozo

Tippy, I knew, in the back of my mind, that you would have the answer. Why? Cause you win. That's why.

Originally Posted by Mithril Leaf

Alright. I finally surrender. Tippy, you do in fact equal win. You have claimed the position of being my idol.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy

Being a willing target is a subset of the targets. You can enter that set in two ways 1) be voluntarily entering it or 2) by being unconscious. If you are part of that set then you don't get a save against any spell.

If you are conscious then you get to make your choice whether to be part of the willing targets set whenever you want (and people can be assumed to default to being unwilling), if you are unconscious then you automatically become a willing target.

Willing is not something that only exists for specific spells, specific spells just restrict you to only willing targets.

The two sections don't reference each other. Willing might be something that only exists for specific spells if you look at the RAW. For other spells, it's "voluntarily forgo[ing] a saving throw". Does common sense tell us it's the same? Maybe, maybe not.

I'm going to go ahead and support015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped until further notice.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Siosilvar

014 (TWF), if it's added that you don't take the TWF penalties unless you're actually using the TWF action.

I'm all for this, so long as we make it explicit in the combat rules that you can change between primary weapons on all your iterative attacks. Right now under Full Attack it says "you can strike with either weapon first", but doesn't specify that you can still switch on subsequent attacks.

Originally Posted by Siosilvar

010 (Mounted Charges) As currently written, it completely excludes Pounce, Headlong Rush, Furious Charge, and similar abilities from applying with a mounted charge, since the rider isn't treated as charging, only gaining the same bonus & penalties as the mount. I think you'd also have to rewrite Spirited Charge to fit, since the rider isn't taking a full-round action to charge any more. I do like the idea behind the change, though.

Actually, I would like to include Pounce/Headlong Rush/Furious Charge into mounted charges (I like letting melee have nice things), and in fact I'd like to get rid of the "single melee attack" on mounted charges altogether (can't the rider just delay his action until after his mount moves?) but I felt that wasn't the original intent behind the mounted combat rules. But we do need to specify what happens when the rider has Pounce and his mount is charging.

Originally Posted by Siosilvar

011 (More Charges) This clarifies Ride-by Attack, yes? I think it still has the issue of not actually working, since you can't move through an opponent and almost every legal charge would have you continuing through them.

You need to be able to charge past your target, yes... but oddly enough, while this requires the mount to charge, it can't actually get an attack if it continues to move away from the target.

Technically, the Rules Compendium allows you to jump over "obstacles", so you could try Jumping over your target to continue moving in a straight line, but that would look silly. Also, the Rules Compendium never defined what an "obstacle" was, so there's no indication if allies or opponents count as an "obstacle".

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Originally Posted by Siosilvar

The two sections don't reference each other. Willing might be something that only exists for specific spells if you look at the RAW. For other spells, it's "voluntarily forgo[ing] a saving throw". Does common sense tell us it's the same? Maybe, maybe not.

I'm going to go ahead and support015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped until further notice.

When you cast a spell it checks target and then decides what happens. Willing is the most restrictive of the various subsets in targets (everything but objects falls into the creature subset, for example; or everything that is undead falls into the undead subset, which is a part of the creatures subset. So a lich would fall into the Creature (Undead (Intelligent Undead)) set.

The bottom of the set is willing; you become part of that set in only 2 situations, if you choose it or if you are unconscious. Everything that is part of the willing subset gets no save.

People who think Tippy equals win.

Spoiler

Show

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr

Clearly, this is because Tippy equals Win.

Originally Posted by Sunken Valley

Tippy=Win

Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx

Wow... Tippy, you equal win.

Originally Posted by Immabozo

Tippy, I knew, in the back of my mind, that you would have the answer. Why? Cause you win. That's why.

Originally Posted by Mithril Leaf

Alright. I finally surrender. Tippy, you do in fact equal win. You have claimed the position of being my idol.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

When you cast a spell it checks target and then decides what happens. Willing is the most restrictive of the various subsets in targets (everything but objects falls into the creature subset, for example; or everything that is undead falls into the undead subset, which is a part of the creatures subset. So a lich would fall into the Creature (Undead (Intelligent Undead)) set.

The bottom of the set is willing; you become part of that set in only 2 situations, if you choose it or if you are unconscious. Everything that is part of the willing subset gets no save.

"Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if youíre flat-footed or it isnít your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing."

Nothing in that states that a willing creature doesn't get a save. Forgoing your save is a different section of the text:

"A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spellís result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality."

I'm not going to argue RAW any further, and "common sense" could swing either way, so how about we let this thread do what it was designed to do and crowdsource it?

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Seems like the confusion is people looking at "willing" in different way. Strictly looking at syntax, why are "forego a saving throw and willingly (adverb) accept a spell results" and "a willing (adjective) creature" being treated as the same thing? The former implies an action, something a creature has to make a choice to do; how would an unconcious creature make this choice?

Last edited by georgie_leech; 2012-04-20 at 09:25 PM.
Reason: grammar

Originally Posted by Alberic Strein

Aaaaaaand Georgie just won this whole thread.

Originally Posted by Sam K

Although being realistic, what the playground would ACTUALLY do is find the guy, then explain to him how fireballs are suboptimal and help him pick more optimal spells for terrorizing people. And we'd probably argue over what alignment his terrorizing was.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Because you (and most people) misunderstand how targeting works in D&D.

When you cast a spell it asks "Is this target X?" where X is whatever the spell is able to effect, say intelligent undead.

With willing only spells it asks "Is this target willing (unconscious or choosing to forgo their save)?" and if the answer is yes then the spell works

Will all other spells it asks, for example, "Is this target a creature?" If it get's a yes it then asks "Is this target immune to this spell, say [mind affecting]?" if it receives a no then it asks "Is this target willing?" if the answer is no then it gets a save.

A creature must be unwilling for a save to be rolled.

People who think Tippy equals win.

Spoiler

Show

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr

Clearly, this is because Tippy equals Win.

Originally Posted by Sunken Valley

Tippy=Win

Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx

Wow... Tippy, you equal win.

Originally Posted by Immabozo

Tippy, I knew, in the back of my mind, that you would have the answer. Why? Cause you win. That's why.

Originally Posted by Mithril Leaf

Alright. I finally surrender. Tippy, you do in fact equal win. You have claimed the position of being my idol.

Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

The main problem with the unconscious willing target argument is that there is no real way to apply common sense to it, since we don't actually know how mind-affecting spells work (do they change something about the conscious brain, or the unconscious one? If the former, it wouldn't work on unconscious targets since their conscious brain is turned off; if the latter, it would still work since their brain is still functioning, albeit at a lower level). So, it may be better to just drop it for the purposes of this thread.

Also Tippy, by RAW (I agree with your reading, just not that it is RAI) it would effectively make coup-de-graces on unconscious targets succeed automatically as well, since they would be "willing" to forgo the fortitude save, which my common sense says is ridiculous.